Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson
The remake was criticized for being a shot for shot, and too close to the original. How can it be "shit" if the original is so great?
*insert longwinded rant about how Van Sant is underrated, and pretend like hes more iconic than Hitchcock to see if I can get anyone to argue w me*
Van sant is certainly more to my taste, anyway.
|
Seeing as it's a shot for shot remake it's begs the question of what's the point. From what I can remember is that there's the added scene where he's watching her undress and they make explicit the fact he's masturbating. Why? COS ITS THE 90S WE CAN DO THIS SHIT NOW! Alt the end of the remake you're just left thinking "what was the point?". It's like listening to a cover of the Beatles. Sure it's ok, but I'd rather just listen to the Beatles instead.
As for the sequels, I remember seeing one with Jeremy Irons on ch5 when I was about 12 (before I'd seen the original actually). It's basically him recounting his story to a radio DJ or something. The only scene I remember is him rolling around with his mum on the floor and she berates him when he gets a boner. 12 year old me who had just started puberty was confused as hell at that scene. I'm sure Freud would have had a field day with that one.